Syria - One More Time

The War in Syria has been so well propagandized and so well disguised as a U.S. war that even when people are told the truth about it, they still turn around and call it a Civil war and wonder how to stop ISIS and Assad.  

The only way to stop this war is to stop the primary aggressor, the one responsible for the war, the United States of America. 

So once again, for posterity:  ("The Wikileaks Files: The World According to U.S. Empire")

“In the case of Syria, the cables [documents] show that regime change had been a longstanding goal of US policy; that the US promoted sectarianism in support of its regime-change policy, thus helping lay the foundation for the sectarian civil war and massive bloodshed that we see in Syria today; that key components of the Bush administration’s regime-change policy remained in place even as the Obama administration moved publicly toward a policy of engagement; and that the US government was much more interested in the Syrian government’s foreign policy, particularly its relationship with Iran, than in human rights inside Syria.

 

“A December 13, 2006 cable, ‘Influencing the SARG [Syrian government] in the End of 2006,’ indicates that, as far back as 2006—five years before ‘Arab Spring’ protests in Syria—destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy…The cable outlines strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government…

 

“This cable suggests that the US goal in December 2006 was to undermine the Syrian government by any available means [including lying, of course, as we saw when they blamed Assad for using chemical weapons], and that what mattered was whether US action would help destabilize the government, not what other impacts the action might have.

 

“In public the US was in favor of economic reform, but in private the US saw conflict between economic reform and ‘entrenched, corrupt forces’ as an ‘opportunity.’ In public, the US was opposed to ‘Islamist extremists’ everywhere; but in private it saw the ‘potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists’ as an ‘opportunity’ that the US should take action to try to increase.

 

“[One US official by the name of William Roebuck] argued that the US should try to destabilize the Syrian government by coordinating more closely with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fan sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia, including by the promotion of ‘exaggerated’ fears of Shia proselytizing of Sunnis, and of concern about ‘the spread of Iranian influence’ in Syria in the form of mosque construction and business activity.

 

“By 2014, the sectarian Sunni-Shia character of the civil war in Syria was bemoaned in the United States as an unfortunate development. But in December 2006, the man heading the US embassy in Syria advocated in a cable to the secretary of state and the White House that the US government collaborate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian conflict in Syria between Sunni and Shia as a means of destabilizing the Syrian government.

 

“At that time, no one in the US government could credibly have claimed innocence of the possible implications of such a policy….No one working for the US government on foreign policy at the time could have been unaware of the implications of promoting Sunni-Shia sectarianism.”[11]

 

The issue then got a little interesting here, most specifically when it comes to analyzing the current Syrian refugee crisis:

 

“It was easy to predict then that, while a strategy of promoting sectarian conflict in Syria might indeed help undermine the Syrian government, it could also help destroy Syrian society….

 

“So, while the sectarian character of the civil war in Syria is now publicly bemoaned in the West, it seems fair to say that in 2006 the US government foreign policy apparatus believed that promoting sectarianism in Syria was a good idea, which would foster ‘US interests’ by destabilizing the Syrian government.”[12]